Wanderlust 4x5 P&S

[Larry Kellogg]

Pretty staggering, huh? Shoot what we got while we got it.

Pan F+ in 4x5, that's not happening either. I think Stone was carrying that flag for a long time.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Hopefully I'll win the lottery this week. I'll call up Simon and pay him to make me a master roll of 3200 in 8x10 and 14x17. I'll pay for any required R&D, as well as packaging, and shipping. I'll even throw in a bonus for the staff. While they're working on that, construction of my huge, walk-in freezer will be underway. I was always told to dream big.

[Corran]

Well I don't need Pan F+ in LF, it would just be interesting. I have a shot from 6x7 on Pan F+ dev'd in Rodinal that I enlarged to 16x20 that looks as good or better than my 4x5 enlargements. Contrast is hard to control though.

[Kuzano]

Shen Hao and a couple of others make a 6X17 back that fits 4X5 camera backs. I plan to investigate that. My current solution for 6X17 is to shoot two or more frames with my Fujica G690... have them drum scanned and then stitch them in digital. I would like to switch to a one capture method, but I have never been willing to step up for the pricey coat of dedicated 4x5 equipment. I have masked my Fujica down and shot 35mm film through it for a panorama. But if any of you guys are car buffs you know there is never a "replacement for displacement".... With film, "there's no replacement for square inches"...

This camera may bring me reasonably priced one shot 6X17 panorama. Just have to figure out the lens to use with the back extension that the 6X17 back offers to get the 6X17 area covered.

[Corran]

I just did some searching and read that the Shen Hao adds somewhere around 43-47mm extension*. Therefore, one would expect to be able to use a 135mm lens, right? You wouldn't be able to focus really closely either.

*Another post claims only 38mm. So perhaps a 125mm would be a better option? You'd have to try it yourself, I suppose. On the other hand, shooting w/ the 90mm on a 6x12 back and cropping to a 1:3 ratio would be about the same thing.

[JChrome]

Shen Hao and a couple of others make a 6X17 back that fits 4X5 camera backs. I plan to investigate that. My current solution for 6X17 is to shoot two or more frames with my Fujica G690... have them drum scanned and then stitch them in digital. I would like to switch to a one capture method, but I have never been willing to step up for the pricey coat of dedicated 4x5 equipment. I have masked my Fujica down and shot 35mm film through it for a panorama. But if any of you guys are car buffs you know there is never a "replacement for displacement".... With film, "there's no replacement for square inches"...

17cm = 6.7 inches. A 6x17 back would not fit a 4x5 camera. But it would fit on a 5x7 (or larger).

My 6x12 back barely fits my 4x5. Don't get me wrong though, I'd love to shoot some 6x17 :-).

[Corran]

Extension backs are available to shoot 617 on a 4x5. That's what he's talking about.

[JChrome]

So ends the dream of a fast 4x5 film:
"Dear Larry et al,
I have already said that DELTA 3200 and PAN F + as sheet film would not be an economic proposition to even coat never mind the required work in R&D for the requisite sheet film formulations of the two emulsions. Nothing has changed.
One parent roll is 193,750 sheets of 5"x4" 'give or take'.
Very Sorry.
Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :"

So they need to sell 200K sheets of film. Why not do a kickstarter? Let's just stick with Delta 3200 to keep it simple.

I'd buy 200 sheets of Delta 3200 for sure. They'd need 1000 guys like me then. These guys sold 1500 travelwides. Of course, not everyone would get this but I think we could get there... and Ilford could put up the Kickstarter with very low risk.

[Lachlan 717]

[Larry Kellogg]

I'm afraid the R&D costs could not be covered by KickStarter. It's more than just selling the film. Still, it's an interesting idea. I would also buy two hundred sheets. We just need 998 more people. ;-)